TITLE: The Urgency of Constructing Peace

AUTHOR: Yossi Beilin

PUB: New York Times

DATE: April 18, 2001

TEL AVIV - The past few days once again remind us of the thin layer of ice on which the architecture of the Middle East peace process is constructed and the unbearable ease of escalation of violence both in the North, with Lebanon and Syria, and in the West Bank and Gaza, with the Palestinians. Even more tempting is the desire to depart from the herculean task of peacemaking and return to the familiar arena of polemical point-scoring. Perhaps here Israel may feel it has registered a meaningful victory. Among many observers in the United States, there may be a sense that Yasir Arafat overplayed his hand when he refused the most far-reaching peace proposal, preferring instead to ride the tiger of demonstrations and violence after Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount six months ago. Prime Minister Sharon, perhaps buoyed by this feeling of success in the media war, was apparently in a candid mood when being interviewed last weekend in the Israeli papers. Reverting to type, he took refuge in a narrow national pride, indicating that there is actually no chance for peace, that limited nonbelligerency is the great new hope, and displaying almost no room for compromise with either the Palestinians or Syria. However, we are not in the arena of polemics, and Mr. Arafat's diminishing popularity in the world does not make Israel a happy country. The continuing violence, the fear for personal safety, the recall of the Egyptian and Jordanian ambassadors from Tel Aviv, the decline in foreign investments, the harm to the economy and tourism - all these oblige Israel to continue with a substantive political process and not to return to a struggle over public relations. The dream that established Israel is that a nation of Jewish people will be able to live a normal life, to develop Jewish culture, to live in peace with our neighbors and to be a safe haven for the Jews of the world. Israel, which has reached impressive achievements in spheres like the military and science, is still not a safe haven for Jews. It is not yet a "normal" country, and the peace process, which opened with the agreement between Israel and Egypt, was severed a few months ago. The Oslo agreement brought peace between Israel and Jordan, the development of ties between Israel and countries of North Africa and the Persian Gulf, and a drawing together of Israel and the Palestinians that almost achieved a peace between them. The so-called Al Aksa intifada halted the process and thrust the Middle East into reverse: violence, hate, a lynching atmosphere, futile struggles in the United Nations, unemployment and distress, incitement, renewed alienation of Israel from Arab countries and a feeling of going back to square one. There are those both in and out of Israel who will say that this is fate, that Israel cannot integrate itself into the Middle East, that by nature it is an alien seedling and it is better for Israel to fortify itself as a democratic-Western outpost in the region and to give up its dreams for peace. Should this approach, which characterizes the Israeli right wing led by Ariel Sharon, take root, Israel may become an episode in history. Israel won six wars because its leaders had convinced the people that they were doing their utmost in order to reach peace. Without the hope for peace, without the endeavors for peace, it will be impossible to maintain a viable Jewish state for long. Not many will want to live by the sword, to endanger themselves and their families without any hope of normalization. Those who tell us that we cannot make peace with our neighbors bring us Job's tidings; they do not make it easy for us. The Palestinians live with us, alongside us, and there is no real reason why we shall not live with them in peace. We know them well, are aware of their suffering and know that many of them want peace and are even ready to pay the price to achieve this. We were so close in the Camp David discussions in July 2000 and even closer in discussions that we held in Taba, Egypt, in January 2001. The outline for a workable settlement was sketched by President Bill Clinton last December. Palestinians as well as Israelis well understand that sooner or later that settlement - or some approach very like it - will be the solution and the only questions are how much time it will take and how much blood will be spilled, on both sides, until we return to these concepts. Chairman Arafat confirmed to me when I met with him in Ramallah last week that the Palestinian response to the Clinton ideas was acceptance with reservations - a response similar to the Israeli cabinet's decision on Dec. 28, 2000, under the government of Ehud Barak, to accept these ideas with reservations. The war of attrition and escalation that continues with the Palestinians is bad news for them and for Israel. Unilateral separation - that is, fixing a border between Israel and the Palestinians without a negotiated agreement - can be realized only if Israel is willing to uproot about 100 settlements, a prospect that is unrealistic in the absence of a peace accord. Without such an accord there can be no guarantee of demilitarizing the Palestinian state. Most important, there can be no agreed resolution of the refugee issue and no closing of claims in this regard, a matter of vital Israeli interest. I can testify that some resolution to the refugee question was within reach at Taba without in any way compromising the demographically Jewish nature of the state of Israel. The only practical way forward is to renew security cooperation, and immediately thereafter to negotiate how to implement the series of agreements that have been signed by the parties but not executed. Prime Minister Sharon's determination that no negotiations will be conducted as long as violence continues sounds justified, but it is erroneous. One dare not give a veto to the extreme radical holding the pistol. It is necessary to distinguish between violence that stems from the Palestinian Authority, which the authority must end, and violence and terror that are not connected to it and that can be stopped only as a result of security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Bearing in mind this distinction, we must find a path to negotiations now; there is no substitute. Whoever believes in the Jewish right to a nation, to peace and to a normal life must make a true effort to resume political dialogue, to reach a permanent settlement, to set permanent borders for Israel and not to give up the chance to live in peace with all our neighbors. They are here, we are here, neither of us chose the other as a neighbor, and neither is going anywhere. Yossi Beilin was Israel's justice minister in the government led by Ehud Barak. END top